DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. Examiner suggests “Press Ram with Non-Stick Texture” or equivalent descriptive language.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-9, 13, 15, 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okuyama (US 2002/0018730 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Okuyama meets the claimed molding tool for use in pressing operations for pressing powder material, (The pressing surface 14a of the upper punch 14 presses the upper surface of the underlying powder 18 as illustrated in FIG. 1B, [0055])) comprising; a concave pressing surface, (pressing surface 14a) wherein an extensive non-stick texture is located on the pressing surface to prevent powder material from adhering, (the adherence between the press-compaction surface and the compact is reduced [0072]) wherein the non-stick texture comprises a multiplicity of local recess structures. (Okuyama teaches surface 16a many minute concave portions and/or convex portions each having a dot-shape or another shape may be arranged on the pressing surface. In such a case, it is preferred to set the depth of the concave portions to be 0.1 mm or less and the height of the convex portions to be 0.1 mm or less in order to improve the mold release property of the compact, see [0069]).
Okuyama does not teach and wherein the recess structures each have a depth of 0.04 mm to 0.2 mm.
Okuyama teaches it is preferred to set the depth of the concave portions to be 0.1 mm or less [0069].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to vary the depth of the recess structures to meet the claimed 0.04 mm to 0.2 mm in the surface 14a of Okuyama to improve the mold release property of the compact, see [0069].
Regarding claim 2, Okuyama as modified meets the claimed molding tool according to claim 1, wherein the local recess structures are laser engraved. (Okuyama teaches a pressing surface with depth of the concave portions to be 0.1 mm or less [0069]. Although Okuyama teaches a method of making such a concave portion electric discharge machining, [0072], the claim is a product-by-process limitations, see MPEP 2113. The product of Okuyama meets the claimed product.)
"[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695,698,227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claim 4, Okuyama as modified meets the claimed molding tool according to claim 2, wherein the recess structures are each laser engraved through a plurality of individual ablations, wherein an individual ablation in each case produces a local recess with a depth of 0.0002 mm to 0.0006 mm. Examiner notes that claim does not recite a final product with 0.0002 mm to 0.0006 mm recesses, but instead a process where the final product has the recesses of wherein the recess structures each have a depth of 0.04 mm to 0.2 mm. The product of Okuyama meets the claimed product.
Regarding claim 5, Okuyama as modified meets the claimed molding tool according to claim 4, wherein the recess structures are each laser engraved through at least 10 and at most 50 individual ablations. The claim is a product-by-process limitations, see MPEP 2113. The product of Okuyama meets the claimed product.
Regarding claim 6, Okuyama as modified meets the claimed molding tool according to claim 2, wherein the recess structures are laser engraved by a laser with a focus diameter of 0.005 mm to 0.2 mm. The claim is a product-by-process limitations, see MPEP 2113. The product of Okuyama meets the claimed product.
Regarding claim 7, Okuyama as modified meets the claimed molding tool according to claim 2, wherein the recess structures are laser engraved by an ytterbium fiber laser. The claim is a product-by-process limitations, see MPEP 2113. The product of Okuyama meets the claimed product.
Regarding claim 8, Okuyama does not explicitly teach the molding tool according to claim 7, wherein the non-stick texture comprises local raised structures, the raised structures being adjacent to the local recess structures, and the raised structures having a height of 0.01 mm to 0.14 mm.
Okuyama teaches the height of the convex portions to be 0.1 mm or less in order to improve the mold release property of the compact, [0069].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to vary the height of the structures to meet the claimed 0.01 mm to 0.14 mm in the surface 14a of Okuyama to improve the mold release property of the compact, see [0069].
Regarding claim 9, Okuyama does not explicitly teach molding tool according to claim 1, wherein the local recess structures each have a maximum extensive expansion of 0.00002 mm2 to 0.03 mm2 at half their depth.
Okuyama teaches in order to more efficiently prevent the slide of the powder particles and to realize a good mold release property, it is preferred to set the surface roughness Ra of the pressing surface 16a to be equal to or greater than 0.05 um and less than or equal to 25um, [0068].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to vary maximum extensive expansion to meet the claimed of 0.00002 mm2 to 0.03 mm2 at half their depth the surface 14a of Okuyama to improve the mold release property of the compact, see [0068].
Regarding claim 13, Okuyama as modified meets the claimed molding tool according to claim 1, wherein there is an area extensively outside the non-stick texture on the pressing surface, the surface of which is essentially smooth relative to the non-stick texture. (the minute surfaces forming a pressing surface are arranged in a concentric pattern [0090])
Regarding claim 15, Okuyama as modified does not teach the claimed molding tool according to claim 1, wherein the local recess structures have on average a closest distance of 0.01 mm to 0.04 mm to one another.
Okuyama teaches the minute surfaces forming a pressing surface are arranged in a concentric pattern [0090].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to vary the average a closest distance of 0.01 mm to 0.04 mm to one another in the surface 14a of Okuyama to improve the mold release property of the compact, see [0069].
Regarding claim 17, Okuyama as modified does not meet the claimed molding tool according to claim 1, wherein the recess structures each have a depth of 0.08 mm to 0.14 mm.
Okuyama teaches it is preferred to set the depth of the concave portions to be 0.1 mm or less [0069].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to vary the depth of the recess structures to meet the claimed 0.08 mm to 0.14 mm in the surface 14a of Okuyama to improve the mold release property of the compact, see [0069].
Regarding claim 18, Okuyama as modified meets the claimed molding tool according to claim 6, wherein the recess structures are laser engraved by a laser with a focus diameter of 0.02 mm to 0.1 mm. The claim is a product-by-process limitations, see MPEP 2113. The product of Okuyama meets the claimed product.
Regarding claim 19, Okuyama as modified does not meet the claimed molding tool according to claim 9, wherein the local recess structures each have a maximum extensive expansion of 0.0003 mm.sup.2 to 0.008 mm.sup.2 at half their depth.
Okuyama teaches in order to more efficiently prevent the slide of the powder particles and to realize a good mold release property, it is preferred to set the surface roughness Ra of the pressing surface 16a to be equal to or greater than 0.05 um and less than or equal to 25um, [0068].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to vary maximum extensive expansion to meet the claimed of 0.00003 mm2 to 0.008 mm2 at half their depth the surface 14a of Okuyama to improve the mold release property of the compact, see [0068].
Claim(s) 2, 4-8, and 18 is alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okuyama (US 2002/0018730 A1) in view of Kesper (US 2019/0248068 A1).
Examiner notes: see alterative rejections for product-by-process claims MPEP 2113(III).
“We are therefore of the opinion that when the prior art discloses a product which reasonably appears to be either identical with or only slightly different than a product claimed in a product-by-process claim, a rejection based alternatively on either section 102 or section 103 of the statute is eminently fair and acceptable. As a practical matter, the Patent Office is not equipped to manufacture products by the myriad of processes put before it and then obtain prior art products and make physical comparisons therewith.” In re Brown, 459 F.2d 531, 535, 173 USPQ 685, 688 (CCPA 1972).
Regarding claim 2, assuming that Okuyama as modified does not meet the claimed molding tool according to claim 1, wherein the local recess structures are laser engraved.
Kesper meets the claimed wherein the local recess structures are laser engraved. (Kesper teaches method for structuring a surface for an embossing tool [0008] FIG. 1b shows a surface 2 with a structure introduced by laser engraving or direct laser ablation. Laser ablation is used to remove material directly from surface 2 to create 6 recesses, is particularly rounded in depth or rather in the depth profile as shown in FIG. 1b [0049]. Kesper teaches laser ablation is an alternative to selective deposition welding or plating, wax deposition modeling, metal powder deposition, electron beam welding, or electrophoretic deposition, [0015]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to use the laser ablation technique of Kesper in place of the electric discharge machining of Okuyama because improves the accuracy of the recess structure, see [0056].
Regarding claim 4, Okuyama as modified meets the claimed molding tool according to claim 2, wherein the recess structures are each laser engraved through a plurality of individual ablations, wherein an individual ablation in each case produces a local recess with a depth of 0.0002 mm to 0.0006 mm. Examiner notes that claim does not recite a final product with 0.0002 mm to 0.0006 mm recesses, but instead a process where the final product has the recesses of wherein the recess structures each have a depth of 0.04 mm to 0.2 mm. The product of Okuyama in view of Kesper meets the claimed product.
Regarding claim 5, Okuyama as modified meets the claimed molding tool according to claim 4, wherein the recess structures are each laser engraved through at least 10 and at most 50 individual ablations. The claim is a product-by-process limitations, see MPEP 2113. The product of Okuyama in view of Kesper meets the claimed product.
Regarding claim 6, Okuyama as modified meets the claimed molding tool according to claim 2, wherein the recess structures are laser engraved by a laser with a focus diameter of 0.005 mm to 0.2 mm. The claim is a product-by-process limitations, see MPEP 2113. The product of Okuyama in view of Kesper meets the claimed product.
Regarding claim 7, Okuyama as modified meets the claimed molding tool according to claim 2, wherein the recess structures are laser engraved by an ytterbium fiber laser. The claim is a product-by-process limitations, see MPEP 2113. The product of Okuyama in view of Kesper meets the claimed product.
Regarding claim 8, Okuyama does not explicitly teach the molding tool according to claim 7, wherein the non-stick texture comprises local raised structures, the raised structures being adjacent to the local recess structures, and the raised structures having a height of 0.01 mm to 0.14 mm.
Okuyama teaches the height of the convex portions to be 0.1 mm or less in order to improve the mold release property of the compact, [0069].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to vary the height of the structures to meet the claimed 0.01 mm to 0.14 mm in the surface 14a of Okuyama to improve the mold release property of the compact, see [0069].
Regarding claim 18, Okuyama as modified meets the claimed molding tool according to claim 6, wherein the recess structures are laser engraved by a laser with a focus diameter of 0.02 mm to 0.1 mm. The claim is a product-by-process limitations, see MPEP 2113. The product of Okuyama in view of Kesper meets the claimed product.
Claim(s) 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okuyama (US 2002/0018730 A1) in view of Tsuruta et al. (US 2018/0290415 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Okuyama is silent on the -molding tool according to claim 1, wherein it consists essentially of high-speed steel.
Tsuruta teaches powder compaction molds and methods for manufacturing powder compacts, [0001], mold is formed of carbon steel, alloy tool steel, high-speed steel, [0087].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to substitute the high-speed steel of Tsuruta as the generic material of Okuyama because high-speed steel is an art-recognized material for power compaction mold parts and obtains a predictable result of compacting powder.
The courts have held that simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application, see MPEP § 2143(I).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 10-12, 14, and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art includes Okuyama (US 2002/0018730 A1), Kesper (US 2019/0248068 A1), and Tsuruta et al. (US 2018/0290415 A1).
Regarding claim 3, the prior art of record does not teach or suggest the molding tool according to claim 2, where the laser engraved recess structures are laser engraved at a laser incidence angle of at most 40°.
Regarding claim 10, the prior art of record does not teach or suggest molding tool according to one of claim 1, wherein the local recesses are located within a multiplicity of macro-areas, each macro-area having an extensive expansion of 0.3 mm2 to 3.0 mm2 on the pressing surface, wherein the macro-areas are separated from one another by boundary areas having shallower depths than the depth of the local recess structures.
Regarding claim 11, the claim requires the limitations of claim 14 which are indicated as allowable subject matter.
Regarding claim 12, the prior art of record does not teach or suggest molding tool according to claim 1, wherein the pressing surface is rotationally symmetrical with respect to an axis of symmetry and the non-stick structure covers at least one region of the pressing surface which forms a normal angle of less than 20° with respect to the axis of symmetry of the pressing surface.
Regarding claim 14, the prior art of record does not teach or suggest molding tool according to claim 13, wherein the pressing surface is dome-shaped and an area of the non-stick texture corresponds to a first inner concentric region of the pressing surface, wherein an outer smooth second region of the pressing surface is located around the non-stick texture and wherein the first region makes up 10% to 60% of the pressing surface and the second region makes up the rest of the pressing surface.
Regarding claim 20, the claim requires the limitations of claim 14 which are indicated as allowable subject matter.
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sawaguchi teaches (US 2010/0330385 A1) teaches [0124] In this process, after the different type metal film 3 is formed on the surface of the base metal material 1, the base metal material 1 is irradiated with an electron beam or laser beam as energy beam to locally heat the different type metal film 3 by using the energy of the energy beam so that the different type metal film 3 and the base metal material 1 are combined.
Fahrenbach (US 2010/0294015 A1). Teaches a die where the DLC layer is provided with a micro engraving for example by laser ablation. [0027].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL M. ROBINSON whose telephone number is (571)270-0467. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30AM-6PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sam Zhao can be reached at (571)270-5343. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL M. ROBINSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1744
Prosecution Insights